ptatc

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 28, 2014 -> 11:54 AM) Notre Dakota: the OTHER UND. There is another? I thought the team named Sioux was the only one?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 28, 2014 -> 11:41 AM) Yeah, so be prepared to come in any time between the 6th and 9th. As long as that is the expectation, that is really not at all an unreasonable request. Be prepared to get dudes out tonight when the starter needs help. It is unreasonable to need to be prepared for an unknown every night. When do you start to warm up. Does everyone in the pen start warming up in the sixth inning? That would really wear everyone out pretty quickly in the season.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jun 28, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) Are you really arguing that Lindstrom wasn't the opening day closer? Not sure what I'm missing here. I'm saying he wasn't the "planned" opening day closer. Jones was injured and that started the downward plan for the closer.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 28, 2014 -> 10:28 AM) Lol, and that's worked SO well so far. Also, a tangent point, I really hate how the whole "defined roles are the only way anyone can perform" adage is treated like some law of physics. Why do we accept that these guys need to be coddled and handed excuses? Your name is called -- get guys out! That's it! Quit being a weiner and do your goddamn job. The closer is the only guy who really has a predictable timetable anyway. Every other reliever could be called on at any time from the 6th to the end of the game depending upon matchups and how deep the starter goes. The "setup guy" probably gets the 8th inning in maybe 50% of the games, and that's only if he's the right handedness. It's all a bunch of agent crap, IMO. RPs are supposed to go in and get batters out. Don't allow runs somewhere between 8:30 and 10:00 at night. Doesn't matter what inning it's in, and if you're so delicate that you can only perform if you can pinpoint the exact moment that you'll get your ten minutes of work in, then go back to the Bush League. whether you think it or not it's reality. There is a big difference as to when to pitch. In the ninth there is no safety net, you pitch poorly the team loses. If you pitch in the 8th there is always a chance you can come back with offense. Picture if you worked for an insurance company and you have auto clients. You mess up ona couple of bad policies and you lose a few thousand dollars. Now let's say you handle flood insurance in a coastal region and messed up the re-insurance when Katirna hit. Same job different pressure. Pitchers also like defined role for the comfort and confidence. All players need this as it's a game of dealing with failures. when you are in a comfort zone it's easier to deal with these failures. Remember when Frank Thomas was blasted because he didn't want to screw up is pregame routine and the Sox wanted to change it to allow fans into batting practice early? All baseball players do this and need this. whether you agree or not, this is the mentality of the MLB player. Now some rare ones are mentality strong enough not to deal with it. However, nearly all of them need this routine to be comfortable.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jun 28, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) Doesn't matter if he was the planned closer when they resigned him, he was the planned closer on opening day and Nate Jones was a setup man before he got injured. I don't think so. I think it was planned for Jones to be the closer once Reed was traded.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 5, 2014 -> 06:36 AM) Grade inflation happens for athletes at 95% of DI schools, but Stanford is in the other 5%. Not according to the posters who attacked me about Richard Sherman. It was also in reference to all students not just athletes.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 28, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/winnin...p;vkey=news_mlb Winning Formula...Five Reasons For Oakland As Lasting Success So the most common theme is having players without egos, thus no "star" players. So all teams should go the cheap route and not attract star players with egos

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 11:09 AM) I don't want it to seem like I'm bashing Konerko because I'm not, but the only thing he has going for him Hall of Fame wise is the counting stats and a World Series. He has never won any awards, never led the league in anything and his rate stats are not that great. His average fWAR for his career is about 1.9. That rates as average or even slightly below average. JAWS lists him as the 81st greatest 1B to play the game. He's 198th all time in OPS and just 381st all time in OPS+. As a 1B, that's not that great. Like Nolan Ryan never winning the Cy Young and leading the league in walks almost as many times as he lead it in strikeouts?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 02:06 PM) Because what it is good for? Absolutely, nothing. SAY IT Again HUNH!

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) The larger point you are glossing over is that there are other options to lead this thing. It's not as though rebuilding efforts can only prove successful if they occur under the managerial genius of Robin Ventura. If the FO wants to half-ass the managerial part of the product while it is going through changes then whatever, that's their choice, but I think it's unnecessay. I think the best thing (for Robin) that anyone can reasonably say is that he should be re-evaluated after the season. This is his 3rd year and if by the end of Year 3 it's still "what you see is what you get" then that isn't going to cut it. Do you want Robin to turn into Thibs where he only pitches 2/3 of the staff? Baseball is 162 games everyone needs to see the field otherwise everyone else breaks down. The bullpen cannot throw strikes and what is he supposed to do about it.? Over work the starters? People are trying to fire him for that too.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 11:32 AM) BTW greatest Rpobin f***up moments: I'll start with the 2012 game he blew something like a 6-run lead in the 9th by going with a s***ty "get his work in" player and then forgetting to get his pen ready, and then bringing in guy after guy cold until the lead was gone. I think they lost that one in extras. Also constantly refusing to trust Q in his rookie season and having Reed blow like 2 games that should have been CGs. This guy is terrible, I hoped he would develop as a manager, clearly not. There isn't a single manager in the game that hasn't had the same thing. Look at the Minnesota message boards. Most of the fans have been calling for Gardenhire's head for the last two years for many of the same complaints. I consider him a pretty good manger as well. All mangers blow games. you just need to look at positives and negatives.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 10:50 AM) If Robin is really that comfortable putting the game in the hands of Don Cooper, then why does he want to be manager in the first place? Eventually, he's going to have a Harry Truman/General Douglas McArthur moment where he realizes the two of them can't co-exist unless he wants to be totally emasculated as a manager. As far as Cooper goes, Noesi/Putnam/Petricka are all wins for him. Did anyone expect much out of Danks again, for example lower than a 4.00 ERA? If you're going to blame him for Scott Downs, Erik Johnson or Daniel Webb, then we might as well blame Jeff Manto for Keppinger. Most managers in baseball lean on the pitching coach for advice on making pitching changes. It's part of the job of the pitching coach to know the pitchers. Similar to the head coach of a football team allowing the defensive coordinator to run the defense. The all have input.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 09:50 AM) I think a better manager manages a bullpen better, but you can only do so much with the talent on hand, and this wouldn't be a good bullpen at this point even with someone else on hand. Not to mention that you're #1 and #2 bullpen guys at the beginning of the year are out. Many bullpens will fail when you lose two of the best members.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) Rizzo has been the better player. He is younger. He is much better defensively. He has a wOBA of .400. Anthony Rizzo is turning into a stud. Abreu is awesome too but we are being homers if we suggest that Abreu is better and it's not close. Come on. How many years has Rizzo been in the MLB? I wouldn't say Rizzo is the better player yet. Currently, maybe.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) Roster moves recap: --Danish to DL, Tommy Thompson says no big deal, precautionary --Walker activated --Heisler to Restricted (Susp) list --David Putnam from KAN to WS --Tyler Barnette to DL for KAN --KAN roster at 23, no filling moves yet What is the given "injury" of Danish?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 09:27 AM) According to fangraphs, the White Sox have the worst bullpen in baseball. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=15,a Part of it is also injuries.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) Well this is interesting - I just did some Googling on this myself, and it appears you can A) no longer do any backcountry camping in the park, and B) some of the further backcountry sites that are normally restricted can now only be accessed by Ranger-led groups. Yikes, things have changed there. Thanks for the info. You beat me to it. We did sign up for some of the ranger guided tours. There was a twilight version that included private tours (groups of 5 or smaller) for some of the backcountry ones.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 05:20 PM) Nothing quite like a closer with a 5.50 E.R.A. Well he is the third choice for the closer.

QUOTE (robinventura23 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 02:34 PM) Sorry, I had to.... however, I've been told that pitching that coming into the beginning of the ninth inning is not difficult and just like any other inning. It's not a high leverage situation and your best reliever should not pitch there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:56 PM) I am ideologically in favor of open borders but don't think it's practical either politically or realistically given the way the world currently functions. Exactly. In the ideal world it would work. however, that is not the climate in which we currently live.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:51 PM) We just have a fundamental difference of opinion. I am a free market capitalist, I ultimately believe that the freer the society is, the more prosperous it will become. You can google hundreds (if not thousands) of free market thinkers who come to similar conclusions. For example, many would argue the reason the US is not growing like it did at the turn of the 20th century was because of the restraint on immigration. I have no problem if you do not subscribe to free market ideas. Its just like arguing whether sausage or cheese pizza is better, it comes down to taste. Agreed. I have read many of them and do I agree with many of the points, I think there are too many restrictions on some things. I think it's like communism, everyone sharing everything sounds like a good idea, until people get in the way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:45 PM) Payroll, gas, sales and property taxes are all things that are damn-near inescapable. State income taxes are often pretty regressive as well. The only real tax that low-income immigrants wouldn't be paying into would be federal income tax. Since it's acknowleged they will be among the poor as they will work for low wages, these will not amount to much. most will not own property so there will not much property tax. I should amend the "will not pay taxes" to they will pay very little in taxes. Again, I'm not against the idea of immigrant workers. I think they are necessary. I just think the open borders and unrestricted policy would work.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:37 PM) That isnt a good correlation. You dont end murder by making it legal. There would still be murders, it just wouldnt be a crime. And I never said there cant be rules once they get here. I have no problem making their stay contingent on rules. Just because you get a chance to be here, doesnt mean it has to be carte blanche. Also we just have a fundamental difference on economic policy, I believe more immigrants will increase the amount of money the US govt will have to spend on civil services, so it at worst would be a push, but likely would result in the US having more money for civil services. There is plenty of literature on this topic, I am not the one who invented it, that would be Adam Smith. your immigration policy would be the same as the people would still becoming into the country but instead of being illegal they are now legal there really wouldn't be a change. I've seen the ideas of no net change in the economy and I've seen other that dispute it. I just makes more sense to me that many more poor people not paying taxes in the current economic environment would put too much of a strain on the system. i guess it's just a different view point. With the way the current politics are going I don't think either option will ever get a true chance to work.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:28 PM) You are right no person in the world can predict the future. But you can look at history and try and make the best guess. Illegal immigration (in my opinion) is historically a losing cause unless you want to be a country like NK where you control the border on both sides. As for the economic part, you cannot know it will hurt or help the economy. Many economic theorists agree with me, that more immigrants = better stronger American economy. So we dont know if it will work, unless we try it? Is that not the same argument you made to me. I dont care about people crying if its not right. I dont care how many southerners cried against ending slavery, I dont care how many men cried about giving woman the right to vote. When something is the best, you have to stand by it regardless of what others may say. Statistically there is no evidence that immigrants = more crime. Its a circular argument, because if that argument was valid, my family would never have been allowed to come here (much like many of yours) because at one time in history our family was "the criminal immigrants" who are going to bring crime to the US. Dont you see why that is flawed? Youre family werent criminals just because they were immigrants, just like todays immigrants arent criminals merely because they are immigrants. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. In the end you hope that when you are good to people, they will do the right thing. Maybe they wont, but Id rather give someone the chance. Because I cant predict who is a criminal or not, and I don't believe that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than non-immigrants. I do believe that the police and prosecutor are more likely to arrest and convict an immigrant, but that is the same for any person who is not privileged. But that is a problem for another day. I don't think you are looking at it the right way. You are assuming that all of the immigrants will come here idealistic and righteous and be productive members of society. They aren't criminals because they are immigrants. However, because they are poor and will live in high crime areas, they will place more of a burden on the system and thus will contribute to the problem. They will be some that become desparate enough to turn to crime but hopefully not many. But I think you can agree that if you innundate the already high crime rate areas with even more poor people, crime will increase. You cannot equate the turn of the century US with the growing economy with the US of today. The economic condition isn't the same unrestricted poor workers will add to great of a burden on the government without much benefit, as someone said because they will not be paying taxes. Migrant workers are needed for the economy but to restrcit the number who stay here permanaetly would be the best of both worlds.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:04 PM) The reason you arent following my logic is because you dont want to accept that the best policy is to make legal immigration as easy as possible. You are asking me to discount my position "the best way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal." The only way you can stop illegal immigration is to also prevent US citizens from leaving. If you have a completely closed border, you will have the best chance of stopping illegal immigration. As soon as you let people in and out, you have a risk of illegal immigration. I can come up with countless "gimmicks" to curtail immigration, at best it will marginally slow it down, at worst it will spend govt money with little to no result. Which is why the best answer to end illegal immigration is "make legal immigration easier." 2 birds, 1 stone. This is not a good answer. That's like saying the best way to end murder is to legalize murder. Just because you agree it's a good idea doesn't mean it's the best way to solve the problem. You can legalize it, but monitor it much more effectively. Maybe have non-US citizens check in and prove they are still working the way our student visa students need to do. Not a full time student, back you go. Not a working immigrant, off you go. Either way if it's unrestricted there will be just too much strain on the civil services (police, fire etc.) and the medical system in the US which is already over loaded. I'm not going to bring someone here and not take care of them